South Africa has the second highest murder rate in the world. It is a favourite hangout for organised crime syndicates from every corner of the world..CORRUPTION...Who Cares ?
. No fear No Favour - The Truth sets you FREE...........

A swift judgment in the North Gauteng High Court (NGHC) has paved the way for Moneyweb’s application to inspect the shareholder registers of several companies related to the restructured Sharemax investment scheme.

Judge Neil Tuchten dismissed the most contentious request from the Nova Property Group, Frontier Asset Management and Investments and Centro Property Group to force Moneyweb journalist Julius Cobbett to hand over all his correspondence with third parties during his extended Sharemax investigations.

This includes all correspondence with Sharemax investors, forensic auditors, complainants to the FAIS Ombud and the Financial Service Board.

This interlocutory application follows Moneyweb’s application in July last year to access the shareholder registers of Nova, Frontier and Centro in terms of Section 26 of the Companies Act. This section allows for any individual to access the shareholder register of a company.

Moneyweb believes there is huge public interest in seeing these registers, as Nova is the company that now owns all the various properties that used to belong to Sharemax investors. Frontier and Centro are involved with the management and administration of these properties.

When Nova was formed through the scheme of arrangement, the executive directors Dominique Haese, Rudi Badenhorst and Dirk Koekemoer held 43.2% of Nova's issued shares. Moneyweb hopes to see whether this shareholding has changed and who owns the balance of the issued shares.

Interlocutory

The directors of these companies have bluntly refused Cobbett request for access to the registers. They allege that Moneyweb and Cobbett are engaged in a sustained vendetta against them and that Cobbett will use the information contained in the shareholder registers to further defame and vilify individual directors.

Moneyweb has consistently denied that such a vendetta exists and approached the GNHC in August to force the companies to provide Moneyweb with access to their shareholder registers.

Nova, Frontier and Centro strongly contested this application by Moneyweb. The companies then brought the interlocutory application to force Cobbett to hand over copies of what may include highly sensitive information, citing a court rule designed for discovery in trial actions. This rule requires parties to trial actions to make full discovery of all relevant documents. But Moneyweb’s application is not a trial action.

The documents demanded by Nova and its associates include all Cobbett’s correspondence with virtually every single individual he has ever consulted in his investigations relating to Sharemax, Nova, Frontier and Centro and their directors.

Moneyweb argued that these broadly described and unspecified documents were totally irrelevant to the Section 26 application, and that the interlocutory application was brought as a ploy to delay the main application, which is to get access to the shareholder registers.

On Friday Judge Tuchten found that although a “compelling case for discovery” has been made, a request for such a vast amount of documents is inappropriate under the circumstances. He suggested that the dispute may be best resolved through oral evidence, rather than on affidavit only. Moneyweb did not agree to this suggestion. Judge Tuchten then dismissed Nova’s claim for these documents.

Moneyweb ordered to provide physical documents

Moneyweb did provide web addresses to other, public documents, requested by in Nova, Frontier and Centro in terms of Rule 35, as they were all available on the internet.

But Judge Tuchten ruled that this was insufficient and ordered Moneyweb to provide physical printed copies of these public documents to the three companies. Moneyweb will immediately comply with this ruling.

This judgment now paves the way for the main case to be heard in the GNHC. The initial Section 26 application was made more than a year ago, and should in theory only be a simple administrative process to access the shareholder registers.

Hopefully, the main application can be dealt with in the same swift manner as this interlocutory application.

See Judge Tuchten judgment here.

----------------------------------------
Special Investigations

Author: Julius Cobbett|

FSB weighs in on controversial Sharemax opinion

Responds to Sharemax director’s comments on Fais Ombud complaints.

JOHANNESBURG – The Financial Services Board (FSB) has found it necessary to comment on a circular issued by Sharemax director Dominique Haese. The circular, dated August 6, 2013, suggests to investors that if they pursue complaints against their financial advisers with the Fais Ombud, they may forfeit rights to investment returns or repayments from the Nova Group. See: Sharemax director warns against Fais Ombud complaints.

The Nova Group has approximately 33 000 investors who acquired shares or debentures as a result of the restructure of property syndications promoted by Sharemax Investments. The restructure resulted out of a scheme of arrangement which was sanctioned by the High Court on January 20, 2012.

The Nova Group is controlled by four directors, two of whom, Dominique Haese and Dirk Koekemoer, played important roles in the promotion of Sharemax investment products.

On October 25 the FSB issued a media release in response to Haese’s circular.

Says the FSB: “The circular may be read as suggesting that the Fais Ombud no longer has jurisdiction to deal with complaints of former Sharemax investors, not only against the Sharemax companies themselves, but also against their directors or functionaries.”

“Further, that pursuing claims through the offices of the Ombud may be interpreted as that such claimants have abandoned and repudiated their claims arising from the schemes of arrangement.

“The FSB cautions, without suggesting a particular alternative, that views on the above issues are still subject to adjudication by the FSB Appeal Board and until this has been decided upon, investors are well advised to consult their legal representatives before taking a decision on the matter.”

The FSB’s recommendation that investors “consult their legal representatives” may be come as cold and cynical advice to those investors, many of them pensioners, who are struggling to finance living expenses, let alone legal ones.

The very purpose of the Fais Ombud’s office is to provide recourse to victims of bad financial advice, especially to those who can’t afford legal expenses.

The FSB notes that a number of determinations have been made by the Fais Ombud against Sharemax, persons or entities associated with it, and independent intermediaries who had advised their clients to invest in Sharemax products.

Haese is one of those people who have been on the receiving end of the Ombud’s determinations. For more, see Fais Ombud finds Sharemax directors liable for investor’s loss.

“”Many of these determinations have been taken on appeal to the FSB Appeal Board where they are still pending,” says the FSB. “In one such instance the Chairman of the Appeal Board has granted leave to appeal.

“The FSB is trying its best to have this appeal heard as soon as possible. However, nothing prevents any former investor in Sharemax from lodging complaint with the FAIS Ombud against any party considered to be liable for any loss suffered.

“Once the outcome of the appeal referred to, is known, the FSB will issue a follow-up media release in order to guide former Sharemax investors as to their further options.”

JOHANNESBURG – A director of Nova Property Group has accused this Moneyweb journalist of terrorism and extortion. This came after a reminder that the failure to allow access to a company’s securities register may constitute a criminal offence.

On July 24, Moneyweb submitted applications to inspect the securities registers of Nova, Frontier and Centro Prop. The applications were made in terms of Section 26(2) of the Companies Act, which grants any member of the public the right to inspect and copy a company’s securities register, provided the correct process is followed.

On August 14 Centro Property Group financial director Erna Grobler denied Moneyweb access to the securities register on the basis that it is a private company.

Moneyweb replied that the fact that Centro Property Group is a private company is no basis upon which to refuse access to the securities register. Moneyweb informed Grobler that in terms of Section 26(9) of the Companies Act, the failure to comply with a legitimate request for access renders the company, and every director or officer who is knowingly a party to the refusal, guilty of a criminal offence.

On August 15, Moneyweb received responses from Nova Property Group, Frontier Asset Management and Centro Property Group. The responses can be downloaded here (Nova), here (Frontier) and here (Centro).

The responses are virtually identical for each company. In the Nova response, Haese claims that the right to information which Moneyweb wishes to exercise is qualified by and subject to the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA).

Haese says that Moneyweb’s reference to Section 26(9) of the Companies Act “is not only ill-considered and misplaced, but also unlawful, as same is clearly written in terrorem, and intended to be extortive”.

Haese continues: “…all our rights and the rights of the ‘directors and officers’ who you clearly intend to terrorise and abuse, are reserved.

“As indicated to you previously, no purpose has ever been served in responding to or dealing with you.”

It seems reasonable to ask whether all of Nova’s directors are best suited to manage the property portfolio in the interests of investors. For example, Dominique Haese is one of four Sharemax directors who have been accused by Fais Ombud Noluntu Bam of running “nothing more than a Ponzi scheme”. This comment was made by the Ombud in connection with the Zambezi investment scheme that was promoted by Sharemax under the control of Haese and her co-directors.

Corporate lawyer Connie Myburgh has previously acted for Garek, a scheme that resulted in some 2000 investors losing R74m. Long-time Moneyweb readers will remember Myburgh for his aggressive defence of Garek.

A circular distributed to investors at the time of the rescue reveals that Haese, Koekemoer and Badenhorst jointly held 43.2% of Nova’s issued shares. This would ensure that there is little danger of the directors being voted off the board, should the former Sharemax investors wish to remove them.

Sharemax Investors’ Forum representative Herman Lombaard tells Moneyweb that he has repeatedly asked the Nova directors how they acquired this large stake in Nova and what it cost them.

Furthermore, Lombaard notes that Haese benefits from the rescue scheme in other ways. For example, Haese is a director of and shareholder in Frontier Asset Management, which supplies administrative services to Nova Property Group.

Lombaard also claims that Haese has a shareholding in Centro Property Group, which has been contracted by Nova to manage its property portfolio.

Moneyweb is currently seeking legal advice on how to proceed with the application to inspect the companies’ securities registers.

Prior to publication, a copy of this article was sent to Haese with the invitation to correct possible factual errors or offer comment. Haese's response follows:

Dear Mr Cobbett,

Your email and draft article below refers.

We are not prepared to comment.

This response should however not be assumed by you as you being correct or not.

All rights remain reserved.

Should you wish to print anything, we insist that you print this response.

JOHANNESBURG – The Financial Services Board (FSB) and one of its officials, who has been linked to Sharemax, have agreed to part ways. The official in question is Rinate Goosen, a manager in the FSB’s Fais enforcement division. Rinate Goosen is the wife of former Sharemax director Gert Goosen. She is also the former compliance officer for controversial company FSP Network, which traded as Unlisted Securities South Africa (USSA).

USSA was started by Gert Goosen as a company that provided its representatives with the necessary licence to sell Sharemax products. USSA has received severe criticism by Fais Ombud Noluntu Bam, who has described USSA’s business as “nothing short of the hiring out of a licence for a small monthly fee.”

One of the most astonishing things to emerge from the USSA debacle is the sheer number of brokers who were operating under its licence. USSA had literally hundreds of broker representatives yet only one key individual, Gert Goosen, and one compliance manager, Rinate Goosen. The Fais Ombud wrote: “How it was possible to train and supervise this number [of representatives] is beyond explanation.”

Bam continued: “[USSA] abused the [Fais] Act to take advantage of a loophole which effectively allowed unlicensed FSPs to sell risky investments to an unsuspecting public.”

Bam found Gert Goosen and three other Sharemax directors liable for the loss suffered by investor Gerbrecht Siegrist.

The determination does not cast the Goosens in a particularly good light. It seems reasonable to ask whether Rinate Goosen is the appropriate person to hold a senior position at the FSB.

Despite the damning determination, the FSB has defended its employee. Deputy registrar for financial services providers Gerry Anderson has described Goosen as “well qualified and extremely competent”. See: FSB stands by Sharemax-tarnished official.

On Thursday March 14, the FSB and Rinate Goosen issued a joint media release. The release cannot be found in the media release section of the FSB’s website. However it was published in Die Burger on Friday.

In the release, Goosen and the FSB acknowledge that negative media publicity surrounding Goosen’s previous association with USSA has impaired the public’s perception of the regulator’s independence.

The FSB said when Goosen was re-employed, it was aware of Goosen’s previous job as a compliance officer of USSA, and did not find any shortcomings in her original written disclosure.

“The FSB recognizes that Mrs Goosen disagrees with the views and opinions of the Fais Ombud reflected in the Siegrist determination, and Mrs Goosen has stated that the respondents intend to appeal.”

The media release states: “The opinion of the Ombud, with which Mrs Goosen and the appellants disagree, is that Sharemax was a Ponzi scheme, that USSA rented out its licence, that USSA was an extension of Sharemax investments, that USSA engaged unqualified persons as its representatives, and that there were grounds (alleged fraud and reckless behavior) to pierce the corporate veil with respect to USSA and Sharemax Investments.

“The FSB believes that, based on her previous and current service at the FSB, Mrs Goosen is an exceptional employee and the FSB would recommend her to any prospective employer.

“However, because of the negative impression caused by her association with USSA, the FSB and Mrs Goosen have agreed that the FSB’s operational requirements necessitate the termination of her contract.”

The media release did not state whether Goosen received a golden handshake.

The table below summarises Goosen’s career over the past 22 years.

A 22-year summary of Rinate Goosen's carreer
1991 Rinate Goosen joins FSB
1999 Willie Botha starts Sharemax
Rinate Goosen leaves FSB to become compliance manager for Stanlib
2004 Gert Goosen's USSA is licenced with the Financial Services Board. Rinate Goosen is its compliance officer
USSA offers brokers a solution to Sharemax brokers who require a licence to sell property syndication schemes
The solution costs R150 a month
At its peak, USSA had more than 600 broker representatives yet only one key individual and one compliance officer
This raises questions about USSA's ability to supervise so many representatives
2005 Gert Goosen is appointed a director of Sharemax
2008 FSB issues notice 104 of 2008 which requires financial services providers to "directly supervise" representatives who sell shares and debentures
2009 Sharemax collapses
2011 Rinate Goosen rejoins FSB as a manager in the Fais enforcement department
26-Sep-12 Fais Ombud Noluntu Bam describes USSA's business as "“nothing short of the hiring out of a license for a small monthly fee”.
14-Oct-12 Moneyweb identifies FSB's links to USSA
13-Nov-12 Moneyweb reports on a scheme operated by Gert Goosen which pays investors 13% a year.
The FSB claims Gert Goosen's licenced financial services business, Preston Financial Solutions, is "dormant"
29-Jan-13 Bam finds four former Sharemax director's liable for a loss suffered by an investor, Gerbrecht Siegrist
Bam's determination is scathing about USSA's alleged abuse of the Fais Act.
6-Feb-13 The FSB's Gerry Anderson stands by Rinate Goosen, describing her as "well qualified and extremely competent"
12-Mar-13 The Ombud's office confirms that the Sharemax directors have applied for leave to appeal her determination
14-Mar-13 The FSB and Rinate Goosen issue a joint media release announcing the termination of Rinate Goosen's contract.
Topics: FSB, Rinate Goosen, Gert Goosen, Fais Ombud, Noluntu Bam, Gerry Anderson, Sharemax

In 2006 Deon Basson pleaded with Ministers Manuel and Mpahlwa to act on Sharemax.

JOHANNESBURG – In October 2006, journalist Deon Basson wrote to Trevor Manuel and Mandisi Mpahlwa, then the respective Ministers of Finance and Trade and Industry. The letter implored the ministers to do something about property syndication company Sharemax.

Basson did not receive a response to his letter.

When Basson sent his letter, Sharemax had sold syndications to the value of no more than R1.5bn. It was still in its infancy. By the time of its collapse, in September 2010, Sharemax had sold schemes to the staggering value of R5.5bn. The majority of investors are pensioners.

Sharemax’s two largest syndications, Zambezi and The Villa, were launched in 2007 and 2009 respectively. Investors poured a total of R2.3bn into these two projects – R756m into Zambezi and R1.590 into The Villa. These two schemes are also among Sharemax’s most toxic syndications. Fais Ombud Noluntu Bam recently described Zambezi as “nothing more than a Ponzi scheme”.

The obvious question is how Sharemax could continue, unchecked, for so long, when the ministers had been alerted to its alleged transgressions back in 2006.

It’s not as though Basson lacked credibility. Indeed, if there was any financial journalist worthy of the ministers’ attention, it was him. Basson had a formidable track record in exposing financial wrongdoing. He was also a six-time winner of Sanlam’s prestigious Financial Journalist of the Year award.

In March 2007, Basson again wrote to Ministers Manuel and Mpahlwa. His letter can be viewed here. The following regulators were copied on the letter: Errol Kruger, Registrar of Banks, Rob Barrow, chief executive of the Financial Services Board (FSB), Keith Sendwe, chief executive of Cipro, and Narain Kuljeeth, chief director, Office of Consumer Protection.

Basson wrote: “Since I have last corresponded with you, the serious regulatory and compliance issues raised in the Prakke report (attached hereto) had become more burning as a result of ongoing and further non-compliance by Sharemax Investments (Pty) Ltd.”

The Prakke report is an investigation conducted into Sharemax by forensic auditor Andre Prakke. Basson asked Prakke to compile the report to assist him in his legal battle with Sharemax. The 143-page Prakke report was comprehensive and damning. Prakke took particular issue with the investment structure through which Sharemax offered its attractive returns. Prakke argued that this structure was both unsustainable and illegal. He has since been vindicated on both counts.

Prakke says he received several threats of legal action, but never received a summons.

The full Prakke report can be downloaded here.

Basson wrote that there were worrying similarities between Sharemax and the failed Masterbond scheme. Basson concluded that the situation “calls for immediate action”.

Since October last year, Moneyweb has tried to get comment from Trevor Manuel – currently Minister in the Presidency – on Basson’s letter. Although our requests for comment were eventually acknowledged, no response has been forthcoming.

Moneyweb also asked the Department of Trade and Industry’s Narain (Babs) Kuljeeth, who was copied on Basson’s letter, whether any response was sent to Basson, and whether any action was taken. Kuljeeth’s response is produced in full below:

Dear Sir

Much has changed since then. I am certain that it was worked on. I do recall that the Legal Support and Prosecutions section of the Office of Consumer Protection dealt with the matter. I do recall that complainants were referred to the FSB. I also recall that in terms of the Consumer Affairs (Unfair Business Practices) Act, if a business engaged in prohibited conduct, then the Consumer Affairs Committee had no jurisdiction in the matter. It would be SAPS and the NPA.

The Director of Legal Support and Prosecutions has left the Department. I will try to contact him and ask for his input in this matter.

Please also note that today is my last day at the dti. It is not clear for how long I will be away. I will be assisting the National Consumer Commission for some time. I will contact you once I am there. Anyway, I doubt that I will ever escape an esteemed journalist as yourself. You will find me.

JOHANNESBURG - A Financial Services Board (FSB) official used to be involved in a company that “rented” licences to Sharemax brokers.

Sharemax is a failed property syndication promoter.

Rinate Goosen, wife of former Sharemax Director Gert Goosen, is a manager in the FSB’s FAIS enforcement department.

However, Rinate Goosen’s involvement with a company called Unlisted Securities South Africa (USSA) may be seen by some as a black mark on her career.

USSA came under scrutiny by Fais Ombud Noluntu Bam last week. In her latest determination against a Sharemax broker Bam wrote that USSA’s business amounted to “nothing short of the hiring out of a licence for a small monthly fee”.

Many brokers were not licensed to sell Sharemax’s share-and-debenture products. Gert Goosen solved this problem by setting up USSA, a company licensed to sell both shares and debentures. For a small fee of R150 per month, a Sharemax broker could become a “representative” of USSA.

Rinate Goosen is still listed on the USSA website as the company’s compliance officer. Her husband Gert Goosen is USSA’s sole director and key individual. Gert was also a director of compliance at Sharemax. Gert Goosen is also reportedly the brother-in-law of former Sharemax managing director Willie Botha.

At the time of its collapse, in September 2010, Sharemax’s 33 syndication companies owed R4.5bn to about 30 000 investors.

USSA’s high number of representatives has raised eyebrows in financial services circles. Paul Kruger, editor of Moonstone Monitor, a publication associated with compliance company Moonstone, asks why USSA was allowed to operate as it did.

Kruger says it would have been “impossible” for USSA to fulfil its obligations correctly. He notes that an FSB notice, effective 2009, requires financial services providers to “directly supervise” representatives selling shares and debentures.

Says Kruger: “With 1 376 representatives under supervision, it would have been impossible for USSA’s one key individual to comply with this requirement.”

Moneyweb approached Rinate Goosen for a response but she replied that she was not available for comment.

Anderson confirmed that Rinate Goosen was employed by the FSB from 1991 to 1999. She left the FSB in 1999 to join Liberty Collective Investments (which later became Stanlib) where she spent five years in a compliance officer position. Goosen later joined USSA where she spent at least four years as that company’s compliance officer.

Last year Rinate Goosen was re-employed by the FSB. This means that she was not employed by the FSB while her husband worked for Sharemax.

Anderson denies there is any conflict of interest: “At the time of her re-employment, it was known to the FSB what the position of her husband was. It is not believed that there is a conflict of interest. Rinate was employed on her own merits and despite being married to Mr Goosen, based on career history.”

Financial journalist and long-time Sharemax critic Deon Basson has also questioned the FSB on its relationship with the property syndication company.

Basson wrote to Anderson in March 2007 to ask about a paragraph that appeared in a Sharemax newsletter. The paragraph read as follows:

Sharemax’s compliance awareness week that ran from 1 to 7 February 2007 was a big success. The closing speech was by Mr. Gerry Anderson, deputy chief executive of the Financial Services Board and responsible for the implementation of FAIS, at Sharemax House. It was a privilege to be able to listen to him and he was pleased with Sharemax’s role in compliance."

Anderson comments: “I was asked at the time (a reasonable request) by Sharemax to address a group of representatives, both connected to it and independent, on the FAIS Act. Such presentation did take place and the duration was about an hour. This is seen as regulatory assistance and I find it strange that, notwithstanding the fact that similar presentations are given to many groups by senior staff of the FSB, this is singled out specifically.”

Click here to read Basson’s full correspondence with Anderson.

TIMELINE
1991 Rinate Goosen joins FSB
1999 Willie Botha starts Sharemax
Rinate Goosen leaves FSB to become compliance manager for Liberty Collective Investments (later Stanlib).
2004 Gert Goosen's USSA is licenced with the Financial Services Board. Rinate Goosen is its compliance officer
USSA offers brokers a solution to Sharemax brokers who require a licence to sell property syndication schemes
The solution costs R150 a month
At its peak, USSA had 1376 broker representatives yet only one key individual and one compliance officer
2005 Gert Goosen is appointed a director of Sharemax
2008 FSB issues notice 104 of 2008 which requires financial services providers to "directly supervise" representatives who sell shares and debentures
2009 Sharemax collapses
2011 Rinate Goosen rejoins FSB as a manager in the Fais enforcement department
2012 Fais Ombud Noluntu Bam describes USSA's business as "“nothing short of the hiring out of a license for a small monthly fee”.
Image:Searching For Facts Vs. Fiction from BigStock

Topics: Sharemax, licence for hire, Unlisted Securities South Africa, USSA, Fais Ombud, Noluntu Bam, Gert Goosen, Rinate Goosen,nonregulator • 3 years ago
Standardbank 's name appears in the prospectus number 20 "The Villa " Sharemax investments ( Pty ) Ltd.
At the end of April 2010 the SA Reservebank instructed Sharemax to stop taking money in from investors for their now "Failed Scheme" as they were contravening the bank act and other regulations which constituted to illegal deposit taking.
Sharemax is now History and more than 33,000 investors have not received any income since the end of 2010.They have also institued a rescue plan "311' legalising an Illegal scheme !
The minimum of 75 % of the investors did not participate in voting for the new rescue plan.

The point i want to make is that Standard bank up to this point in time has never ever made a statement in this regard regarding their involvement with Sharemax.

Their official letter dated 07/04/2010 which appears from Business Banking in the prospectus addressed to the Sharemax attorneys reads as follow

We as the appointed Business Bankers of the Villa reatil Park Holding Limited ( Reg no 2008/017207/06) do hereby consent to the use of our name in the prospectus of The Villa Retail Park Holding Limited and we confirm that we have not withdrawn our consent nor do we intend to withdraw our consent to the use of our name in the said Prospectus.

I did my investment in May 2010 only to find out that Sharemax was instructed to stop with their illegal activities of taking in new investors money .
The Reservebank appointed statutory managers thereafter with instructions to repay all the funds taken from the invetors by illegal means.
Since then we have seen no legal action taken by the regulators and law enforcemers other than attack
by the ombud on SBFC advisors etc.

My Funds were supposed to have been kept in a Trust account which was paid over to the attorneys: Weavind and Weavind Inc
Absa Business Bank
Centurion
Branch Code - 634256
Account number -405 751 2842

The Prospectus states on the third page in bold;
The Public Property Syndication Association (PPSA) supported by the Property Owners Association ( SAPOA ) ,has laid down a strict code of conduct to protect the rights of individual investors.
The promoters of this syndication is a member of the PPSA ( Public Property syndication Association of South Africa).
Sharemax Investments ( Pty ) Ltd is an Authorised financial Services Provider at the Financial Services Board( FSB) under registration No .6153,other licences held are Sharemax Premium registration No 25694, Sharemax Fund Manager registration no 25694 and Sharemax Short term registration No 30833.

Inflation Protection
Commercial property has proven to be one of the few univerals intruments that retain value in the medium to long term period and consitently beat inflation.

Notice: Investors attention is drawn to the fact that on payment to the Attorneys of the Purchase Price for the Unit and once the cooling off period referred to in paragraph 19.4 below has lapsed,an amount equal to 10% (ten percent ) of the invested amount will be released to the Promoter to be utilized by them for payment of the commissions referred to in paragraph 12.3 below.
Units to the value of the full investment amount will however be issued to Investorstors because the promoters will eventually pay all commissions referred to in paragraph 12.3 below.
In this regard investors is also drawn to the understanding given by the Promoters as set forth in paragraph 25.3 below( The promoter undertakes that in the event of the public property syndication as more fully described herein not proceeding he will refund to the investors the amount by them)

base on all above i considered this to be a low risk invesment with all the guarantees and promises built into the prospectus.
Everybody above has been paid or has had a fair chunk of our investments except us as the investor not reciving and monthly interes as well as the false statement made in paragraph 25.3 by the all the promoter of this scheme.
Hwat does the law say ?
Who are the promoters?
According to the Government Gazette everbody that has been mentioned in the prospectus including the Regulators.
The very same people who are now telling the SBFC broker to repay including the FSB must be held liable.They allocated and regeistered Sharmax as a licenced an a auhthorise service provider.
they were fully aware of what tehir business entailed.
Gerry Anderson of the FSB should explain what did he do at the launching and functions held for investors/brokers at sharmax's office in Pretoria during marketing campaigns for this illegal scheme of illegal deposit takkers.
Sharemax took the money ,now brokers are held liable for repayment of the failed scheme .

Why is there a R 64.5 millon shortfall onthe Zambezi mall and why were the properties not registered in us the investors name by the time the Centre was officially opened on the 7th of May 2010.

Why are we not informed of what really is happening .Why did the Reservebank withdraw their instruction for Sharemax to repay our investments.
How can you legalise an illegal scheme with a 311 rescue plan and not hold the promoters liable for repayment of our funds,but the brokers only ?
One thing for certain i would not invest anyof my funds with a SBFC consultant !
The consumer /Investors are not being treated fairly .

SBFC and all other bank brokers are commission driven.They don't receive a basic monthly salary.It has happened in the past and is still happening.The set up unrealistic targets for you as a consultant to reach by a certain date and if the target is not reached they terminate your contract and keep aal the second year commision and future annual escalation update commssion.

Management is just as guilty as their consultants when it comes to bad advice and not complying with the FAIS 's general code of conduct.

Stuart Loxton and Marius Opperman were guilty of this practice and got away with it by firing their consultants to make up for not reaching the companies annual target.

Loxton caused more damage than good for the company at the time when he was a the helm of SBFC previously know as STANFIN

I would never ever use any bank broker who works on commission only as a financial advisor

13 • Reply•Share ›

Avatar

Albert Einstein • 3 years ago

l do follow this saga with great interest. I cannot understand that the so called "investors" do not seek legal advise to finalise this once and for all. You are taken for a ride and the wrong people will end up with the little that is left.

SHAREMAX Investments, its network of financial advisers and four of its directors – Gert Goosen, Willie Botha, Dominique Haese and André Brand – were involved “in a scheme calculated to defraud members of the public”, financial advisory and intermediary services (Fais) ombud Noluntu Bam said yesterday.

Bam reached this conclusion in her latest determination on a complaint lodged by a 73-year-old female pensioner from Heidelberg in the Western Cape against financial adviser Edward Carter-Smith after investing R490 000 in the Zambezi Retail Park on Carter-Smith’s advice.

Carter-Smith complained that he had been misled by the directors of Sharemax and called them “liars”.

In an earlier determination Bam said Sharemax was “nothing more than a Ponzi scheme” in which investors were paid interest out of their own funds.

Business Report confirmed in October last year that the Hawks were investigating allegations that Sharemax committed fraud and operated a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.

About 40 000 people invested about R4.5 billion in the various schemes promoted and marketed by Sharemax.

It defaulted on monthly payments to investors in August 2010 when a decision by the registrar of banks that Sharemax’s funding model contravened the Banks Act became public knowledge.

ACT Audit Solution told the ombud that it had concluded after seeking a legal opinion that the transfer of investor funds from the trust account of Sharemax attorneys Weavind & Weavind to the investment property companies in The Villa and Zambezi schemes, prior to the registration of transfer of the property to investment property companies, “may constitute a reportable irregularity on a proper interpretation of the prospectuses”.

However, Sharemax directors claimed no reportable irregularity occurred because a bona fide “copy and paste” mistake had occurred during the drafting of the prospectuses.

Bam said this claim by the directors of Sharemax was “disingenuous and against the probabilities”.

She said her office was in possession of promotional pamphlets produced and distributed by Sharemax in 2010 that also stated investors’ funds would be paid into the trust account of Weavind & Weavind attorneys until the property was ready for transfer into the investors’ names.

Bam said Sharemax, FSP Network and the four Sharemax directors on their own version knew at the time of producing this pamphlet that they were “wilfully and deliberately misleading members of the public” because of the “cut and paste error” and the prospectus was subject to rectification.

They failed to explain why this “error” was only discovered after the Reserve Bank intervened in 2010 and after the scheme had already collapsed. They also failed to explain why Weavind & Weavind, which allegedly made the mistake, did not file any papers or correspondence in support of the “cut and paste error” version.

Bam said Weavind & Weavind had further failed to explain why it did not inform investors there was an error before it started paying the funds out of its trust account.

She said Weavind & Weavind had never supported the notion of an error in the prospectus. The law firm was of the opinion that the government notice on property syndications did not apply to this scheme and it was therefore not illegal to pay the money from the trust.

Letters sent to each investor by Sharemax, acknowledging the investment and stating that their investment had been deposited into Weavind & Weavind’s trust account, and kept there until the investment amount was processed and the property was transferred, were “equally untrue and misleading” because on Sharemax’s version this was a mistake.

Bam said these letters of confirmation were still being written to investors after the “mistake” was discovered.

“The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn… is that the second to seventh respondents [Sharemax, FSP Network and the four Sharemax directors] were involved in a scheme calculated to defraud members of the public,” she said.

Pensioner commits suicide outside Sharemax officesIn my Blog I have posted so many Blog Posts on both Sharemax and Picvest.

I have always looked at it from the point of view of an interested observer with a keen interest in the Property Industry. I was always interested in the legal ramifications of the coniving that has gone on with these two investment schemes.

When taking an analytical view of these type of activities, it is easy to forget that there is a real impact on people's lives.

I was therefore stunned to see the latest news on Moneyweb about Sharemax. One of the investors in The Villa committed suicide right in front of the Sharemax Offices, which also happens to be very close to my house.

The fact that Nova Property Group is now simply trading as Sharemax with another name (and the same directors) while investors (many of whom can't afford it) is in my opinion an absolute travesty of justice.